Was reading an article by Lady Liberty titled DOING NOTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING found on Free Market News Network. Lady Liberty does some excellent writing and gets her point across. And you for sure, don't want to be under the focus of her dissecting microscope. She is very efficient with that sharp scalpel of hers.
.
That Lady Liberty has risen up in defense of our fellow compatriot, Angel Shamaya is commendable. Angel DESERVES the recognition justly due him. For, he has labored long and hard at restoring and securing our Second Amendment Right. Hope that all will continue in offering Angel the support needed.
.
Anyways, while reading the aforementioned article, I came across her following statement;
.
"But even bad laws that are changed don't always work out for those caught up in one law enforcement dragnet or another. For example, California has legalized the use of marijuana for medical reasons. Some cultivation is permitted for personal use under that law. Yet federal authorities have destroyed the plants of those who are growing their own medicine, and have arrested some of those who dare to legally treat their ailments with the drug."
.
And a thought hit me right between the eyes, (thank you Lady Liberty....for your writing has proven thought provoking as well).
.
Now, I ask you. Tell me what you see in the above writing that jumps out at you? Is it the part about bad laws? The law enforcement dragnet? Legal medical marijuana? The use of the marijuana by those whom are ailing? There are a number of valid different points that bear reasoning upon. But the previously referenced 'points' are not what grabbed my attention. No.
.
What hit me, with such striking force, is the selective enforcement exercised by that of the federal authorities. The federal government, obviously thinks it has the authority necessary to control the use of marijuana. And believing itself to have that authority, (Which, according to the Federalist Papers, they do indeed have authority to override local and state laws that are repugnant to the U.S. Constitution). The Federal, duly exercised that delegated authority, (the use of medical marijuana, being morally right or wrong, is not the issue here in this article). But, rather, the point being that the Federal saw fit to override, what it perceives to be a Constitutionally repugnant local/state law to the Union.
.
Think on it a little bit, and I bet you can see where I'm going with this.
.
Now, We The People have a Right. That Right is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It is the Second Right outlined in that Bill. Namely, in part, The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed. Correct?
(Yes, there are some who would argue this FACT. To these people, all I have to say, is contact me. And, I'll be more than willing to back it up with so much FACT. That you'll wish you had NOT contacted me).
.
Getting back to the subject at hand. I, for one, have not found ANYTHING in the Constitution that directly touches upon the issue of drugs. And mood or mind altering drugs have been around since the beginning of mankind, so our Founders were obviously aware of them. So, it would seem that the federal has no Constitutionally legal authority at all concerning the issue.
.
On the contrary, what I have found, is an insurmountable amount of evidence, that concisely and irrefutably shows The Right of The People To Keep and Bear Arms. And, that the proper use of federal authority, would be to enforce that Right.
.
Bearing the aforementioned in mind. The thought that had such an impact on me was this. The federal saw fit to exercise its Constitutionally delegated authority, however right or wrong, to NEGATE a local/state law. A law that it perceived as being repugnant, even though there is no foundation for that supposition. Logic would then reason to follow, that since the federal is aware, that it has the authority to step in and override a repugnant state law. Why are they NOT DOING THE SAME, IN ENFORCING A CLEARLY DEFINED RIGHT?
.
Can someone offer me logical reasoning for this? Can it possibly be a GROSS OVERSIGHT on the part of the federal? That can hardly seem to be the case. No, what it provides is clear cut PROOF that the federal government is complicit, at all levels, in the Infringements upon the American citizens Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And, that the federal, SELECTIVELY ENFORCES the LAWS that THEY deem worthy of being enforced! Rather than following the Principles of the U.S. Constitution!
.
Is there any other sound explanation that can be offered?
No comments:
Post a Comment